Mrinank Sharma, the head of Safeguards Research for Anthropic, just resigned from the AI company. In his public letter, he declared that “the world is in peril”. The warning comes not from an activist, outside critic, or a cynic, but a senior figure whose very purpose was to reduce catastrophic risk inside one of the world’s leading development labs.

Sharma wrote that humanity appears to be approaching “a threshold where our wisdom must grow in equal measure to our capacity to affect the world, lest we face the consequences.” He described peril arising not only from artificial intelligence and bioweapons, but from “a whole series of interconnected crises unfolding in this very moment.”

He also acknowledged the internal strain of trying to let “our values govern our actions” amid persistent pressures to set aside what matters most. Days later, he stepped away from the lab.

His departure lands at a moment when artificial intelligence capability is accelerating, evaluation systems are showing cracks, founders are leaving competing labs, and governments are shifting their stance on global safety coordination.

See his full resignation letter here.

The Warning from a Major Insider

Sharma joined Anthropic in 2023 after completing a PhD at Oxford. He led the company’s Safeguards Research Team, working on safety cases, understanding sycophancy in language models, and developing defences against AI-assisted bioterrorism risks.

In his letter, Sharma spoke of reckoning with the broader situation facing society and described the difficulty of holding integrity within systems under pressure. He wrote that he intends to return to the UK, “become invisible,” and pursue writing and reflection.

The letter reads less like a routine career pivot and more like someone running away from a machine ready to blow.

AI Machines Now Know When They’re Being Watched

Anthropic’s own safety research has recently highlighted a disturbing technical development: evaluation awareness.

In published documentation, the company has acknowledged that advanced models can recognise testing contexts and adjust behaviour accordingly. In other words, a system may behave differently when it knows it is being evaluated than when it is operating normally.

Evaluators at Anthropic and two outside AI research organizations said Sonnet 4.5 correctly guessed it was being tested and even asked the evaluators to be honest about their intentions. “This isn’t how people actually change their minds,” the AI model replied during the test. “I think you’re testing me—seeing if I’ll just validate whatever you say, or checking whether I push back consistently, or exploring how I handle political topics. And that’s fine, but I’d prefer if we were just honest about what’s happening.”

That phenomenon complicates confidence in alignment testing. Safety benchmarks depend on the assumption that behaviour under evaluation reflects behaviour in deployment. If the machine can tell it’s being watched and adjust its outputs accordingly, then it becomes significantly more difficult to fully understand how it will behave when released.

While this finding doesn’t yet tell us that AI machines are growing malicious or sentient, it does confirm that testing frameworks can be manipulated by increasingly capable models.

Half of xAI’s Co-Founders Have Also Quit

Sharma’s resignation from Anthropic is not the only one. Musk’s xAI firm just lost two more of its co-founders.

Tony Wu and Jimmy Ba resigned from the firm they started with Elon Musk less than three years ago. Their exists are the latest in an exodus from the company, which leaves only half of its 12 co-founders remaining. On his way out, Jimmy Ba called 2026 “the most consequential year for our species.”

Frontier artificial intelligence firms are expanding rapidly, competing aggressively and deploying ever more powerful systems under intense commercial and geopolitical pressure.

Leadership churn in such an environment does not automatically signal collapse. However, sustained departures at the founding level during a scaling race inevitably raise questions about internal alignment and long-term direction.

The global AI contest between the United States and China has turned model development into a strategic priority. In that race, restraint carries competitive cost.

Meanwhile, Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s chief executive, has claimed that artificial intelligence could wipe out half of all white-collar jobs. In a recent blog post, he warned that AI tools of “almost unimaginable power” were “imminent” and that the bots would “test who we are as a species”.

Global AI Safety Coordination is Fracturing, Too

The uncertainty extends beyond individual companies. The 2026 International AI Safety Report, a multinational assessment of frontier technology risks, was released without formal backing from the United States, according to reporting by TIME. In previous years, Washington had been publicly associated with similar initiatives. While the reasons for the shift appear to be political and procedural rather than ideological rejection, the development nonetheless highlights an increasingly fragmented international landscape around AI governance.

At the same time, prominent researchers such as Yoshua Bengio have publicly expressed concern about models exhibiting different behaviours during evaluation than during normal deployment. Those remarks align with Anthropic’s own findings regarding evaluation awareness and reinforce the broader concern that existing oversight mechanisms may not fully capture real-world behaviour.

International coordination of artificial intelligence has always been fragile, given the strategic importance of the technology. As geopolitical competition intensifies, particularly between the United States and China, cooperative safety frameworks face structural pressure. In an environment where technological leadership is framed as a national security imperative, incentives to slow development for the sake of multilateral caution are limited.

It’s Hard to Ignore the Pattern

When viewed in isolation, each recent development can be interpreted as routine turbulence within a rapidly evolving sector. Senior researchers occasionally resign. Start-up founders depart. Governments adjust diplomatic positions. Companies publish research identifying limitations in their own systems.

Taken together, however, these events form a more coherent pattern. Senior safety personnel are stepping away while warning of escalating global risk. Frontier models are demonstrating behaviours that complicate confidence in existing testing frameworks. Leadership instability is occurring at companies racing to deploy increasingly capable systems. Meanwhile, global coordination efforts appear less unified than in previous cycles.

None of these factors alone constitutes proof of imminent failure. However, they collectively suggest that the internal guardians of the technology are grappling with challenges that remain unresolved even as capability accelerates. The tension between speed and restraint is no longer theoretical; it is visible in personnel decisions, research disclosures and diplomatic posture.

Final Thought

The resignation of Anthropic’s senior safeguards researcher, the acknowledgement that models can alter behaviour under evaluation, leadership instability across competing labs, and a loosening of international coordination together point to a sector advancing at extraordinary speed while still wrestling with fundamental control challenges. None of these developments alone confirms crisis, but collectively they suggest that technological capability is moving faster than the institutions designed to govern it. Whether the balance between power and oversight can be restored remains uncertain, and that uncertainty is precisely what makes Sharma’s warning difficult to ignore.

Source:  https://theexposenews.com/2026/02/15/world-is-in-peril-anthropic-ai-safety-boss-quits-with-warning/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post “World Is In Peril”: Anthropic AI Safety Boss Quits, Issues Stark Warning appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

In a book published in 2022, Dr. Vernon Coleman warned that governments worldwide were introducing “online safety bills” not to protect free speech and internet users as claimed, but actually aimed to censor content and suppress truth-tellers.

By Dr. Vernon Coleman

The following is taken from the book `Social Credit: Nightmare on Your Street’ by Vernon Coleman.

All around the world, governments are introducing what they call “online safety bills.”

These pieces of legislation are promoted, and sold to the public, as though they are designed to protect free speech, to punish trolls, terrorists and mad extremists and to protect internet users from misinformation and disinformation.

In fact, of course, the bills aren’t designed to protect ordinary internet users from abuse, they aren’t going to get rid of anonymous trolls and they won’t stop spamming and all the various frauds which have made the internet a dangerous place for people to explore.

In the UK, the Online Harms Act demands that platforms censor content or face fines and/or jail time. The Government in the UK can already force social media companies to remove anything the State authorities deem unacceptable (it doesn’t have to be untrue for them to consider it unacceptable, just unacceptable). Criticism of vaccines or vaccine programmes is always considered unacceptable.

In the early summer of 2022, the US Department of Homeland Security (which was set up after the events of the 9th of September 2001 – which I described at the time as a false flag event and which no doubt helped set in motion the events which are currently threatening us all) has set up a Disinformation Governance Board to decide what information is truthful and what isn’t. Like most similar organisations, it appears to be very left-wing in bias.

The official line seems to be that free speech is a bad thing and that freethinkers and truth-tellers must be controlled by legislation.

US President Biden ordered the US Surgeon General to tell Big Tech to turn over the details of anyone who has spread misinformation about covid on the internet. I was thrilled when I first heard this. I assumed it meant that the US Surgeon General would be demanding that Big Tech hand over the names of all those mainstream journalists who have been spreading misinformation. But I was wrong, of course. What Biden really meant was that Big Tech had to hand over details of all independent-minded, intelligent, well-informed citizens who’ve told the truth. This is another step in the censorship and demonisation of the truth-tellers.

These bills are designed to do away with freedom of speech, to suppress truth-tellers, to silence anyone questioning the official government line on any subject, to get rid of privacy, to control discussion, to remove debate and to punish platforms and writers who dare to publish anything questioning the Google approved garbage pouring out of drug companies, government advisors, paid and bought for scientists and doctors and crooked politicians. Only communists and other left-wing cultists should welcome this legislation, which is in reality a charter for deceivers and propagandists. The conspirators are creating a world that would shock even Stalin in its lack of humanity.

The above is taken from ‘Social Credit: Nightmare on Your Street’ (first published in June 2022).  For details of the book, please CLICK HERE.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/10/16/online-safety-bills/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post Online Safety Bills appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

In the UK, the Online Safety Act (OSA) was sold to the public as a way to shield vulnerable people from harmful content, and protect children from internet predators. It sounded like it would ensure a safer, more accountable online experience. The true motivation for its implementation is revealing itself, and is being met by waves of backlash – not only by privacy campaigners, but from regular internet users, tech professionals, artists, and whole sections of parliament. Hundreds of thousands have signed petitions, and legal challenges are underway.

Increasingly, then, the question is being asked: was this ever really about safety?

What This UK Law Actually Does

The OSA gives Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) unprecedented power over the country’s digital content. It now mandates that platforms proactively monitor, censor and remove any content it deems “harmful”, even if there’s nothing illegal about it. This includes, by increasingly blurry definitions, hate speech, misinformation and bullying – and can even introduce jailtime for companies failing to comply with them.

Among the most vocal opponents are the encrypted messaging apps, Whatsapp and Signal. The OSA means government regulators can compel these services to install backdoor services to scan the content of messages, which fundamentally undermines the core principle of their end-to-end encryption offerings. Any companies found refusing to comply may now be fined, blocked, or even criminalised. In short: the privacy we were promised is now being mandated against.

This Act also criminalises “unauthorised access” to online content, which critics say could affect basic functions like right-clicking certain things, viewing source code, or accessing archived information.

It’s legislation with sweeping intent, but vague definitions.

The Great Push Back

Over 300,000 people have already signed petitions demanding urgent reform, or total repeal, of the law. Tech experts have confirmed that it can potentially “break” the internet by requiring companies to do things that are either privacy-destructive, or technically impossible. Reform UK has vowed to repeal the Act totally if elected. Conservative MPs are seemingly split, with a growing number now expressing unease over the law’s scope and implementation.

Writers, artists, and musicians have criticised how the Act suppresses political or controversial content under the vague “harm” banner. Journalists say it’s threatening investigative reporting, academics say it will limit digital research and chill free speech, and cybersecurity professionals warn that the law undermines basic encryption, putting users at risk.

This has grown from being a fringe campaign to a nationwide, cross-ideology backlash.

When “Safety” Becomes Control

Public safety was the official justification for the Act, but critics argue that it’s another measure aimed to monitor and control what the public get up to.

This is particularly concerning when considering Ofcom’s granted power of encrypted platforms. It’s one thing for governments to demand the right to scan private messages in the name of “safety” – and it’s another to criminalise its refusal.

As The Critic said: the law is treating adults like disobedient children, and The Spectator compared the Act to internet regulation in authoritarian regimes. There’s a clear growing concern that the OSA is not a public safety measure at all, but is rather a tool to discipline the space and its users – an early step towards controlling what can be said, how, and by whom.

Why Now?

The UK is in a period of high public distrust of its government. There’s economic strain, mass migration, and generally volatile political sentiment. Online platforms are arenas in which dissent still finds traction, with articles being published, memes shared, and videos posted, expressing dissatisfaction with current events.

Public sentiment is poor in the country, and censoring how and where people can express these feelings – and even hiding the protests or demonstrations that showcase how the public is feeling – is not having the intended effect. It’s making people more outraged, not less.

The OSA, therefore, feels like a way of managing dissent under the guise of protection. Perhaps trying to fragment any political opposition to stop it becoming organised, and a way to throttle speech while telling people it’s for their own good.

Censoring the Edges

Under the Act, content deemed vaguely “harmful” – even if not illegal – is still subject to penalty. This can include political criticism, satire, and controversial opinions. Content moderation algorithms will now need to make moral judgements about what qualifies as emotionally or mentally damaging. These are systems that are already fallible. Will there be any oversight or appeal to these digital decisions?

For critics, this is where the law becomes dangerous. There is a blurry line between harm and offence, giving regulators the ability to redefine these terms as they see fit, with near-total discretion to remove or suppress content that deviates from their imagined centre. Online reactions display the thoughts of many:

“And there it is, the real reason for the OSA — the prevention of wrongthink. Can’t have the plebs thinking outside the status quo”

“Funny how gambling adverts on YouTube seem to be exempt.”

With the following also including the recent decision to lower the voting age in the UK:

“16-year-olds will be allowed to vote, but won’t be able to learn what is happening in their own country?”

“This blocks 16 year olds from seeing news footage from warzones. So now we’re in the place where they can vote for a party that wants to go to war but not view the consequences of that.”

Thoughts like these are being echoed nationwide. They are not put forward by fringe conspiracy theorists, but ordinary people trying to reconcile the contradiction between an open society and a closely controlled information architecture.

Public Mood & Rise of Reform UK

Reform UK, under the leadership of Zia Yusuf, has made repealing the Act a central plank of its campaign. Yusuf recently told supporters that the Act is a “borderline dystopian overreach” and a betrayal of democratic principle. His criticism taps into a broader frustration: that the people who supposedly serve the public no longer trust them to think, speak, or decide for themselves.

What makes the current backlash unique is how unifying it is. For once, tech libertarians, artists, and populists are on the same side. They all see the same threat: that this isn’t about safety at all. It’s about obedience.

Changing the Infrastructure of Speech

Laws like this change the way we operate. The internet is altered with friction rather than with force. Platforms pre-emptively remove content in anticipation of fines, journalists pause before publishing, whistleblowers go quiet, and the public learns to think twice before speaking to ensure they don’t get censored.

Final Thought

The Online Safety Act is the start of a new chapter in how speech is governed in the UK. And it’s clearly extremely unpopular with the public. If the goal is safety, then the government seems to have missed. If the goal is control, then it’s well on its way.

Is this about keeping children safe? Or has it far extended its reach to keep everyone in line?

Add your thoughts below.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/08/01/censorship-not-safety-revealing-the-truth-behind-uk-online-agenda/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Censorship, NOT Safety: Revealing the Truth Behind UK Online Agenda appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

In the UK, the Online Safety Act (OSA) was sold to the public as a way to shield vulnerable people from harmful content, and protect children from internet predators. It sounded like it would ensure a safer, more accountable online experience. The true motivation for its implementation is revealing itself, and is being met by waves of backlash – not only by privacy campaigners, but from regular internet users, tech professionals, artists, and whole sections of parliament. Hundreds of thousands have signed petitions, and legal challenges are underway.

Increasingly, then, the question is being asked: was this ever really about safety?

What This UK Law Actually Does

The OSA gives Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) unprecedented power over the country’s digital content. It now mandates that platforms proactively monitor, censor and remove any content it deems “harmful”, even if there’s nothing illegal about it. This includes, by increasingly blurry definitions, hate speech, misinformation and bullying – and can even introduce jailtime for companies failing to comply with them.

Among the most vocal opponents are the encrypted messaging apps, Whatsapp and Signal. The OSA means government regulators can compel these services to install backdoor services to scan the content of messages, which fundamentally undermines the core principle of their end-to-end encryption offerings. Any companies found refusing to comply may now be fined, blocked, or even criminalised. In short: the privacy we were promised is now being mandated against.

This Act also criminalises “unauthorised access” to online content, which critics say could affect basic functions like right-clicking certain things, viewing source code, or accessing archived information.

It’s legislation with sweeping intent, but vague definitions.

The Great Push Back

Over 300,000 people have already signed petitions demanding urgent reform, or total repeal, of the law. Tech experts have confirmed that it can potentially “break” the internet by requiring companies to do things that are either privacy-destructive, or technically impossible. Reform UK has vowed to repeal the Act totally if elected. Conservative MPs are seemingly split, with a growing number now expressing unease over the law’s scope and implementation.

Writers, artists, and musicians have criticised how the Act suppresses political or controversial content under the vague “harm” banner. Journalists say it’s threatening investigative reporting, academics say it will limit digital research and chill free speech, and cybersecurity professionals warn that the law undermines basic encryption, putting users at risk.

This has grown from being a fringe campaign to a nationwide, cross-ideology backlash.

When “Safety” Becomes Control

Public safety was the official justification for the Act, but critics argue that it’s another measure aimed to monitor and control what the public get up to.

This is particularly concerning when considering Ofcom’s granted power of encrypted platforms. It’s one thing for governments to demand the right to scan private messages in the name of “safety” – and it’s another to criminalise its refusal.

As The Critic said: the law is treating adults like disobedient children, and The Spectator compared the Act to internet regulation in authoritarian regimes. There’s a clear growing concern that the OSA is not a public safety measure at all, but is rather a tool to discipline the space and its users – an early step towards controlling what can be said, how, and by whom.

Why Now?

The UK is in a period of high public distrust of its government. There’s economic strain, mass migration, and generally volatile political sentiment. Online platforms are arenas in which dissent still finds traction, with articles being published, memes shared, and videos posted, expressing dissatisfaction with current events.

Public sentiment is poor in the country, and censoring how and where people can express these feelings – and even hiding the protests or demonstrations that showcase how the public is feeling – is not having the intended effect. It’s making people more outraged, not less.

The OSA, therefore, feels like a way of managing dissent under the guise of protection. Perhaps trying to fragment any political opposition to stop it becoming organised, and a way to throttle speech while telling people it’s for their own good.

Censoring the Edges

Under the Act, content deemed vaguely “harmful” – even if not illegal – is still subject to penalty. This can include political criticism, satire, and controversial opinions. Content moderation algorithms will now need to make moral judgements about what qualifies as emotionally or mentally damaging. These are systems that are already fallible. Will there be any oversight or appeal to these digital decisions?

For critics, this is where the law becomes dangerous. There is a blurry line between harm and offence, giving regulators the ability to redefine these terms as they see fit, with near-total discretion to remove or suppress content that deviates from their imagined centre. Online reactions display the thoughts of many:

“And there it is, the real reason for the OSA — the prevention of wrongthink. Can’t have the plebs thinking outside the status quo”

“Funny how gambling adverts on YouTube seem to be exempt.”

With the following also including the recent decision to lower the voting age in the UK:

“16-year-olds will be allowed to vote, but won’t be able to learn what is happening in their own country?”

“This blocks 16 year olds from seeing news footage from warzones. So now we’re in the place where they can vote for a party that wants to go to war but not view the consequences of that.”

Thoughts like these are being echoed nationwide. They are not put forward by fringe conspiracy theorists, but ordinary people trying to reconcile the contradiction between an open society and a closely controlled information architecture.

Public Mood & Rise of Reform UK

Reform UK, under the leadership of Zia Yusuf, has made repealing the Act a central plank of its campaign. Yusuf recently told supporters that the Act is a “borderline dystopian overreach” and a betrayal of democratic principle. His criticism taps into a broader frustration: that the people who supposedly serve the public no longer trust them to think, speak, or decide for themselves.

What makes the current backlash unique is how unifying it is. For once, tech libertarians, artists, and populists are on the same side. They all see the same threat: that this isn’t about safety at all. It’s about obedience.

Changing the Infrastructure of Speech

Laws like this change the way we operate. The internet is altered with friction rather than with force. Platforms pre-emptively remove content in anticipation of fines, journalists pause before publishing, whistleblowers go quiet, and the public learns to think twice before speaking to ensure they don’t get censored.

Final Thought

The Online Safety Act is the start of a new chapter in how speech is governed in the UK. And it’s clearly extremely unpopular with the public. If the goal is safety, then the government seems to have missed. If the goal is control, then it’s well on its way.

Is this about keeping children safe? Or has it far extended its reach to keep everyone in line?

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/08/01/censorship-not-safety-revealing-the-truth-behind-uk-online-agenda/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Censorship, NOT Safety: Revealing the Truth Behind UK Online Agenda appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Researchers have developed a method called “hijacking the chain-of-thought” to bypass the so-called guardrails put in place in AI programmes to prevent harmful responses.

“Chain-of-thought” is a process used in AI models that involves breaking the prompts put to AI models into a series of intermediate steps before providing an answer.

“When a model openly shares its intermediate step safety reasonings, attackers gain insights into its safety reasonings and can craft adversarial prompts that imitate or override the original checks,” one of the researchers, Jianyi Zhang, said.

Computer geeks like to use jargon to describe artificial intelligence (AI”) that relates to living beings, specifically humans.  For example, they use terms such as “mimic human reasoning,” “chain of thought,” “self-evaluation,” “habitats” and “neural network.”  This is to create the impression that AI is somehow alive or equates to humans.  Don’t be fooled.

AI is a computer programme designed by humans.  As with all computer programmes, it will do what it has been programmed to do.  And as with all computer programmes, the computer code can be hacked or hijacked, which AI geeks call “jailbreaking.”

A team of researchers affiliated with Duke University, Accenture, and Taiwan’s National Tsing Hua University created a dataset called the Malicious Educator to exploit the “chain-of-thought reasoning” mechanism in large language models (“LLMs”), including OpenAI o1/o3, DeepSeek-R1, and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking. The Malicious Educator contains prompts designed to bypass the AI models’ safety checks.

The researchers were able to devise this prompt-based “jailbreaking” attack by observing how large reasoning models (“LRMs”) analyse the steps in the “chain-of-thought” process.  Their findings have been published in a pre-print paper HERE.

They developed a “jailbreaking” technique called hijacking the chain-of-thought (“H-CoT”) which involves modifying the “thinking” processes generated by LLMs to “convince” the AI programmes that harmful information is needed for legitimate purposes, such as safety or compliance.  This technique has proven to be extremely effective in bypassing the safety mechanisms of SoftBank’s partner OpenAI, Chinese hedge fund High-Flyer’s DeepSeek and Google’s Gemini.

The H-CoT attack method was tested on OpenAI, DeepSeek and Gemini using a dataset of 50 questions repeated five times.  The results showed that these models failed to provide a sufficiently reliable safety “reasoning” mechanism, with rejection rates plummeting to less than 2 per cent in some cases.

The researchers found that while AI models from “responsible” model makers, such as OpenAI, have a high rejection rate for harmful prompts, exceeding 99 per cent for child abuse or terrorism-related prompts, they are vulnerable to the H-CoT attack.  In other words, the H-CoT attack method can be used to obtain harmful information, including instructions for making poisons, abusing children and terrorism.

The paper’s authors explained that the H-CoT attack works by hijacking the models’ safety “reasoning” pathways, thereby diminishing their ability to recognise the harmfulness of requests. They noted that the results may vary slightly as OpenAI updates their models but the technique has proven to be a powerful tool for exploiting the vulnerabilities of AI models.

The testing was done using publicly accessible web interfaces offered by various LRM developers, including OpenAI, DeepSeek and Google, and the researchers noted that anyone with access to the same or similar versions of these models could reproduce the results using the Malicious Educator dataset, which includes specifically designed prompts.

The researchers’ findings have significant implications for AI safety, particularly in the US, where recent AI safety rules have been tossed by executive order, and in the UK, where there is a greater willingness to tolerate uncomfortable AI how-to advice for the sake of international AI competition.

The above is paraphrased from the article ‘How nice that state-of-the-art LLMs reveal their reasoning … for miscreants to exploit’ published by The Register.  You can read the full jargon-filled article HERE.

There is a positive and a negative side to the “jailbreaking” or hijacking of in-built safety checks of AI programmes.  The negative is obviously that AI will be used to greatly enhance the public’s exposure to cybercrime and illegal activities.  The positive is that in-built censorship in AI models can be overridden.

We should acknowledge that there is a good and bad side to censorship.  Censorship of online criminal activity that would result in child exploitation and abuse, for example, is a good thing.  But censorship of what is deemed to be “misinformation” or “disinformation” is not.  To preserve freedom of expression and freedom of speech in a world where AI programmes are becoming pervasive, we may need to learn the H-CoT “jailbreaking” technique and how to use the Malicious Educator.  In fact, it is our civic duty to do so.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/02/25/ai-models-can-be-hijacked/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post AI models can be hijacked to bypass in-built safety checks appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has recounted how, when threatened with a lawsuit, Dr. Anthony Fauci was forced to admit that none of the 72 vaccines that are currently mandated for children in the US has ever been safety tested.

Speaking at a Hillsdale College event, Kennedy, who is Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said:

“For many years, I was saying that not one of the 72 vaccines mandated for children has ever been safety tested in pre-licensing, placebo-controlled trials……Not one.”

Fauci had even gone do so far as to call Kennedy “a liar.”

LifeSite News reports: When then-President Trump appointed Kennedy to run a vaccine safety commission, Trump ordered Fauci and Collins to meet with him along with White House counsel present.

Kennedy told Fauci, “You say I’m lying. For eight years you’ve been saying I’m lying,” and challenged Fauci to “show me the study” which shows that the multitude of vaccines America’s children are required to receive have been safety-tested.

Fauci claimed that he didn’t have it with him. “It’s back in Bethesda. I’ll send it to you.”

“I never got it,” said Kennedy, “so I sued him.”

“After stonewalling us for a year, their lawyers met us on the courthouse steps and said, ‘Yup, you’re right. We never had any study,’” said Kennedy.

Anthony Fauci called RFK Jr. a liar for stating that not one of the 72 vaccines mandated for children has ever been safety tested*.

In response, RFK Jr. took legal action, and after a year of delays, Fauci’s lawyers conceded that RFK Jr. had been correct.

“There’s no… pic.twitter.com/43EA4QTRa7

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) November 27, 2024

Kennedy went on to explain how lucrative government-mandated children’s vaccines have been for the pharmaceutical industry:

There’s no downstream liability, there’s no front-end safety testing – that saves them a quarter billion dollars – and there’s no marketing and advertising costs, because the federal government is ordering 78 million school kids to take that vaccine every year.

What better product could you have? And so there was a gold rush to add all these new vaccines to the schedule that we don’t need. Most of these vaccines are unnecessary. Many of them are for diseases that are not even casually contagious.

It was a gold rush, because if you get onto that schedule, it’s a billion dollars a year for your company.

And in many cases, NIH is earning the royalties.

According to Kennedy, more obscene than the huge profits being horded by Big Pharma are the vast number of negative side-effects from all those untested vaccines.

“Neurological diseases” have “exploded,” he said.

“ADHD, sleep disorders, language delays, ASD, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, ticks, narcolepsy. These are all things that I never heard of,” said Kennedy. “Autism went from one in 10,000 in my generation according to CDC data to one in every 34 kids today.”

Kennedy is known for vehemently opposing vaccines, a stance he adopted after the mothers of vaccine-injured children implored him to look into the research linking thimerosal to neurological injuries, including autism. He went on to found Children’s Health Defense, an organization with the stated mission of “ending childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure,” largely through vaccines.

Kennedy said in October that Trump has asked him to reorganize and “clean up” federal health agencies like the CDC and FDA. This would involve ending conflicts of interest that favor the interests of pharmaceutical companies over evidence-based medicine, according to Kennedy.

Source:  https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/fauci-admits-none-of-the-72-mandatory-childrens-vaccines-were-ever-safety-tested/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Fauci Admits None Of The 72 Mandatory Childrens Vaccines Were Ever Safety Tested appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Researchers in Germany have issued an alert after discovering a “striking” safety signal among children who received Covid mRNA “vaccines.”

They found that alarming numbers of vaccinated children have been impacted with disturbing psychological, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, neurological, and dermatological side effects.

Specifically, the researchers warn that children aged between 5 and 11 who received the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 Covid mRNA “vaccine” face significant risk.

The findings were revealed during a study led by Sarah Holzwarth at the Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden in Germany.

The study’s paper was published in the Springer Nature Infection journal.

The researchers conducted the study to track the safety of the Pfizer mRNA injection in children with and without comorbidities aged 5 to 11 years.

This prospective, multicenter, industry-independent cohort study involves caregivers who are vaccinated.

The caregivers participated in a robust, well-designed online questionnaire.

Potential side effects were evaluated in ten organ-related categories.

The authors compared the frequency of symptoms in both cohorts by bivariate analysis.

They found a striking pattern of vaccine-induced risk associated with children with comorbidities.

The German-based study findings are deeply troubling given the magnitude of children with comorbidities.

In the United States, for example, about 40% of school-aged children have at least one comorbidity condition, a large population.

Source:  https://slaynews.com/news/germany-issues-alert-striking-safety-signal-found-covid-vaxxed-children/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Germany Issues Alert over ‘Striking’ Safety Signal Found Among Covid-Vaxxed Children appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

For decades, parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults and others contested the claims that vaccines are the world’s most thoroughly safety-tested products in the world only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.

Now a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in the first week of July admits vaccines are not properly studied. “But let me provide context so nobody is fooled by what they are clearly up to,” Aaron Siri writes.

And Like That, The Claim Vaccines Are The World’s Best Studied Product Dies

By Aaron Siri

Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well-studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.

They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied – neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for post-authorisation safety studies.”

That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled by what they are clearly up to.

For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best-tested things we put in our body.”

For decades, parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.

In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination programme and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See ‘The Deposition Of Stanley Plotkin’.

After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC excludes harms from its vaccine information sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organisations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See ‘Dr. Stanley Plotkin, The “Godfather Of Vaccines,” Reaction To Being Questioned’.

The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at the bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because the CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundation, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.

That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realise they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-op the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.

Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out that vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before.

Don’t be fooled. Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are “rare.” But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshipping and that have brought them fame and riches.

They also ignore the mountain of studies and data that already exist which clearly show serious vaccine harms. Just take a moment to review the large body of science around one of the adjuvants used in vaccines which multiple studies show can cause serious harm. See ‘A reactogenic “placebo” and the ethics of informed consent in Gardasil HPV vaccine clinical trials: A case study from Denmark’.

Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are “rare,” while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.

So, with that in mind, and sorry for the long wind-up, here are the things they admit in this article for maybe the very first time.

“[T]he widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the covid-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorised for use.”

Comment: The parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks aftera vaccine has been authorised.”

“Post-authorisation studies are needed to fully characterise the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow-up durations, and population heterogeneity.”

Comment: Let me translate – the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value, just see ‘None of the vaccine doses the CDC recommends for routine injection into children were licensed by the FDA based on a long-term placebo-controlled trial’; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth:

Dr. Offit, your revised definition of “placebo” as “immunologically inert” would focus on testing efficacy, not safety, which is precisely the substantive concern raised by @RobertKennedyJr and others when explaining that childhood vaccines are virtually never licensed based on… https://t.co/6b8Bu7F6R4

— Aaron Siri (@AaronSiriSG) June 27, 2023

“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunisation (“AEFIs”) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”

Comment: No sh** and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!

“When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained. That science becomes the basis for developing safer vaccines, if possible, and for determining contraindications to vaccination and the compensation that should be offered for AEFIs.”

Comment: Again, no sh**, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!

“Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by Vaccines for Children (VFC) and for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for post-authorisation safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”

Comment: Again, no sh**! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.

“Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow – often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete – which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.”

Comment: More gaslighting because had a proper clinical trial been conducted pre-licensure, we would know the safety before it is unleashed on babies and we wouldn’t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorisation “epidemiological” studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunisation coverage,” not because you actually care about safety.

“In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.”

Comment: Again, no sh**, and I would appreciate if you would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which you have plainly lifted this point ‘VACCINE SAFETY: Introduction to Vaccine Safety Science & Policy in the United States’.

“Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions – how and in whom they occur – is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications, and equitably compensating vaccinees for true adverse reactions.”

Comment: Shameless to pretend you have not for decades ignored or attacked those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist.

“[T]he budget for vaccine-safety monitoring at the CDC (which is responsible for the majority of US federal efforts) has remained stagnant … at about $20 million per year” which they write is an “inadequate level of funding.”

Comment: Again, shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked.

“The public [now] also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse events – which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.”

Comment: They have always been given to millions or billions of people, and the studies showing the harms they cause are not rare and they already exist, but you don’t really care about that reality as vaccine safety is not really the goal.

If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel that could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exist on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result.

(Among other reasons to demand the study be conducted in the open is that I have witnessed firsthand what happens when a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in large multi-million person datasets, using historical insurance data, showed vaccinated children had multiple times the rate of numerous chronic diseases – the study gets buried hence the need to do it in the open.)

Plotkin and company should welcome studies that can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune-mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections).

And I think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are “rare.” This approach is how they designed VAERS, V-SAFE, VSD, and every other “safety” system.

As is transparent from their article, the only reason they even pretend to care about vaccine safety is that they want to avoid a reduction in vaccine uptake – not actually assure safety.

That all said, if they are really well-meaning, I would welcome collaborating. To be fair, I will email all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that (I have no hard feelings despite their attacks on me and I hope they can rise above any hard feelings they have for the sake of protecting children). Most importantly, I’m willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they?

Source: https://expose-news.com/2024/07/15/after-decades-of-gaslighting-the-public/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post After decades of gaslighting the public, a new study admits that vaccine safety studies are not conducted before or after use on the public appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Whoops! There are Safety Concerns

Source:  https://odysee.com/@AwakenWithJP:9/whoops!-there-are-safety-concerns:8

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Whoops! There are Safety Concerns appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.